On 12/11/06, tiffany wrote: > On 10/16/01, Beth wrote: >> On 8/25/01, anon wrote: >>> If congress can't restrict the expression of religion, how >>> is it they can 1)prohibit the display of Nativity scenes >>> (just because it is on government property doesn't mean the >>> government is endorsing it - it just shows free expression} >>> and 2)the saying of "Merry Christmas" on the radio? You can >>> only say "Happy Holidays" - "Merry Christmas" is in the >>> same category as "f..." That seems a shame. Explain that >>> to me legally.

First, let's clear up the inaccuracy - the government cannot prohibit private citizens from saying "Merry Christmas" on the radio, not sure where you got that.

Per a long line of US cases, the government can and must prohibit government property from being used to endorse any religion. That's pretty brightline, not a lot of wiggle room there.

Seatac airport is a gentle twist on the issue - is a Christmas tree a religious symbol? While many don't like the outcome, the Seattle Port Authority was probably wise to do what they did, since it would have cost a great deal of money to litigate, and they likely would have been forced to remove it anyway.